The Official Secrets Scandal
Political calculations are beyond me. They remind me of those endless gaming sessions—to work off the Christmas sweets—where we alternate between role-playing games, poker, and Party & Co. But making laws isn't a casual pastime.
If the blockade of all Spanish government initiatives succeeds, among the tome of laws that will never see the light of day are some historic ones, like the one that would repeal the 1968 Official Secrets Act. We have withdrawn the leader From street signs to the Valley of the Fallen, the dictator's rule of law, allowing him to make and unmake decisions, remains in effect. Many crimes of the regime and dirty secrets of successive governments remain covered up. From the distant past, linked to the Transition or the role of the emeritus king, to the recent past. The former director of the National Intelligence Center (CNI) did not testify before the judge about political espionage using Pegasus because the information was classified. The pretext of protecting national interests, the sacred reason of state, still works. A current example is the export of defense and dual-use goods—such as technology that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. The authorizations are classified, and the minutes of the board that approves them (the JIMDDU) are secret.
There is a certain amount of information that is withheld from the constitutional right to communicate and receive truthful information, so that states cling to caution. As the saying goes, "fear guards the vineyard, and the shell, the pine cone." But popular wisdom also recognizes the perverse effects of fear when it is stirred up unjustifiably: "Fear makes the devil uglier." Official secrets cannot be decreed arbitrarily, keeping the population ignorant forever under the pretext of a vague enemy. Every restriction must pass a triple test: legality, necessity, and proportionality. Following this example, in the area of weaponry, the transparency of trade agreements does not entail an intrinsic risk. On the contrary, it prevents certain states from feeling threatened and ensures that we do not contribute to wars based on deception.
The project, currently stalled, isn't exactly daring. It's reminiscent of a passage from Romance of the Spanish Civil Guard from Lorca:The clocks stopped / and the cognac in the bottles / disguised itself as November / so as not to arouse suspicionThe legal facelift begins with the name: "Classified Information Act" is a title that doesn't touch the curb. It's aseptic, ideal for avoiding scrutiny. And it continues with the timing, since it was introduced surreptitiously, befitting the phenomenon ofaugustness from the administration. During the holidays, controversial projects pass by unnoticed. However, there are plenty of reasons for protest. Certain red lines should not be crossed in a state governed by the rule of law, lest the laudable purpose of protecting the population be undermined. Let's look at some of them:
1. What can be declared secret and what information, on the other hand, cannot be withheld? Although assessing security risks is not easy, there is a golden rule: avoid vague legal concepts and interpret them restrictively. It is unacceptable to include "foreign relations," "situations of international tension," or "strategic economic or industrial interests." And even less acceptable is a catch-all category for "other areas," at the whim of the government in power. In a country where the interests of the political and economic elites often go hand in hand, the stage is set for chaos. Was the Castor project strategic? And how can the mammoth projects that are yet to come—whether airport expansions or rare mineral mining—be strategic? Labeling prevents us from comparing the effects on the natural environment and weighing the costs and benefits. Nor should information that could prove the commission of serious crimes be concealed. These crimes include heinous human rights abuses—rape, summary executions, torture, ethnic cleansing—as well as acts of corruption and fraud. Classification cannot act as a license for personal gain, a license for pirates. It's worth remembering this when figures like Montoro are enjoying their Christmas treats at home.
2.Who should be able to classify and who should be able to oppose it? We must be very restrictive with the authorities who can classify information (the fewer the better!) and very generous with the individuals and institutions that can request reclassification or declassification. Parliament, of course, and any individual, regardless of whether they have a specific reason or are directly affected, should be able to do so. Nor should we hinder judicial review. Restricting access to the Supreme Court represents an unnecessary and discouraging cost.
3. How long can the armor last? No secret can last forever. It is urgent to end the indefinite duration of secrets under the 1968 law and establish reasonable timeframes. Forty-five years for automatic declassification, with a 15-year extension, is, quite simply, a joke.
Journalists and activists are the groups potentially most affected. Punishing those who divulge classified information with fines of up to two and a half million euros (!), even if access was accidental, is outrageous. Given that there is no registry that allows access to matters identified as top secret, secret, confidential, or restricted, the result is censorship, plain and simple.
As the US teaches us (military raids, the Epstein case, etc.), it is crucial to properly document classified information to prevent its manipulation, loss, or destruction. Sheriffs like Trump, who treat public information like a game of Trivial Pursuit, demonstrate the need for robust laws that facilitate parliamentary, judicial, social, and media oversight. Our hesitant legislators can draw inspiration from international standards (the Tshwane Principles).For technical questions. And for the disoriented, responsible for the osteoporosis of our democracy, in the verses of Wislawa Szymborska: "May the big questions forgive me for the small answers."